Is morality objective or subjective?

[bahman]

I don't understand what you are complaining about. I asked whether you believe that God is in charge of moving objects, such as Earth around the Sun, or that is due to the intrinsic nature of matter. I believe that the singularity could exist without a cause and it has some properties, such as pressure, size, and temperature. It naturally expanded as a result of high pressure so the temperature dropped. Elementary particles then had the chance to come into existence...

You will find that it is mostly impossible to convince a theologically-invested mind to think in non-theological terms. For the theist all things arise with God and from God. Natural laws (gravity, etc.) are God’s handiwork. Behind all phenomena — is the uncaused cause.

Etc. etc. etc.

Just as the Causeless Cause is central to ICs religious philosophy, similarly God’s conversation with Abraham is a fundamental pillar. You can’t remove a pillar and expect the structure to stand. So each pillar must be upheld at all costs!

Carry on of course . . .

Yes, some theologians like Aquinas think that God sustains the universe. IC does not believe that so we are left with only one option, namely that the regularity in motion of matter, so-called laws of nature, is due to the nature of matter. Well, if we accept this then all complexity in the behavior of matter can be explained in terms of the laws of nature. So no God is involved in it. So we are left, with whether the initial state of the universe, the singularity, which was nothing but a hot dense form of energy is caused or it simply existed without a cause. He simply discards the second scenario without giving any justification. He calls it incomprehensible. To me, it is very trivial. Once you accept the existence of singularity then all things follow and we can have such a rich universe with all complexities.

[Immanuel Can]

Explosion is defined as a violent shattering or blowing apart of something. It results in randomness. Whereas rapid expansion generally does not lead to randomness.

Ah! So you're suggesting that "rapid expansion," at the Big Bang...which you also call "the Singularity," already had the means inherent within it to produce order?

My question is simple: how? How does something that is (if I understand your position) completely devoid of intention, intelligence, order, or purpose itself, suddenly produce, through a "rapid expansion," all the order that exists in the observable universe?

[bahman]

Explosion is defined as a violent shattering or blowing apart of something. It results in randomness. Whereas rapid expansion generally does not lead to randomness.

Ah! So you're suggesting that "rapid expansion," at the Big Bang...which you also call "the Singularity," already had the means inherent within it to produce order?

My question is simple: how? How does something that is (if I understand your position) completely devoid of intention, intelligence, order, or purpose itself, suddenly produce, through a "rapid expansion," all the order that exists in the observable universe?

I already answered that in my last post but I repeat myself: There was a hot dense form of energy so-called singularity. It has a very high pressure so it expanded. It cooled down as a result of expansion. Energy has the potential to turn into matter and vice versa. When the temperature was cold enough matter came into existence. Matter has a set of properties and moves according to these properties. The regularity that we see in nature, so-called the laws of nature is the result of these properties. You can have all sorts of things, such as stars, planets, and even life in this huge thing without any boundary that we call the universe.

So the main question is whether the singularity was caused or it simply existed since things, such as how matter comes into existence, are straightforward after we accept its existence either way.

[Immanuel Can]

Explosion is defined as a violent shattering or blowing apart of something. It results in randomness. Whereas rapid expansion generally does not lead to randomness.

Ah! So you're suggesting that "rapid expansion," at the Big Bang...which you also call "the Singularity," already had the means inherent within it to produce order?

My question is simple: how? How does something that is (if I understand your position) completely devoid of intention, intelligence, order, or purpose itself, suddenly produce, through a "rapid expansion," all the order that exists in the observable universe?

I already answered that in my last post

Not even close. You said what you hoped had happened, but you said nothing at all about how it was possible to happen. How can you get order from sheer accident? Where have you ever seen that happen, in actual life?

So the main question is whether the singularity was caused...

Well, if it was caused, then the Singularity wasn't the First Cause...something "caused" the Singularity. So we're not even interested in the Singularity, because we are asking "What was the First Cause," not "what was something that happened down the causal chain, after the First Cause?"

...things such as how matter comes into existence are straightforward after we accept its existence either way.

Things are "straightforward," in that sense, after we accept the existence of God, too...but our question is which the more plausible way to proceed. And we have two, now: one is that all the order in the universe came by something prior to the Singularity...but you haven't exactly told me what that might be, nor can I guess what you have in mind...or that all the order in the universe has been generated by an intelligence.

So which is more plausible?

[bahman]

Ah! So you're suggesting that "rapid expansion," at the Big Bang...which you also call "the Singularity," already had the means inherent within it to produce order?

My question is simple: how? How does something that is (if I understand your position) completely devoid of intention, intelligence, order, or purpose itself, suddenly produce, through a "rapid expansion," all the order that exists in the observable universe?

I already answered that in my last post

Not even close. You said what you hoped had happened, but you said nothing at all about how it was possible to happen. How can you get order from sheer accident? Where have you ever seen that happen, in actual life?

You didn't read my whole explanation. Did you?

So the main question is whether the singularity was caused...

Well, if it was caused, then the Singularity wasn't the First Cause...something "caused" the Singularity. So we're not even interested in the Singularity, because we are asking "What was the First Cause," not "what was something that happened down the causal chain, after the First Cause?"

Once you have the singularity the whole things follow. So the question is whether the singularity was caused or simply existed.

...things such as how matter comes into existence are straightforward after we accept its existence either way.

Things are "straightforward," in that sense, after we accept the existence of God, too...but our question is which the more plausible way to proceed.

No, things just follow when you accept that the singularity existed. Whether it is caused or not is a subject of debate.

And we have two, now: one is that all the order in the universe came by something prior to the Singularity...but you haven't exactly told me what that might be, nor can I guess what you have in mind...or that all the order in the universe has been generated by an intelligence.

So which is more plausible?

I already explained how you could have matter after the hot energy cools down enough.

[Immanuel Can]

I already answered that in my last post

Not even close. You said what you hoped had happened, but you said nothing at all about how it was possible to happen. How can you get order from sheer accident? Where have you ever seen that happen, in actual life?

You didn't read my whole explanation. Did you?

Of course. Hence my question.

Once you have the singularity the whole things follow. So the question is whether the singularity was caused or simply existed.

Yes, yes...you said that...but it makes no sense.

First of all, you don't already "have" the Singularity. We're talking about the First Cause, which you now say has to be prior to the Singularity, so as to be its cause, right? We know mathematically and certainly that the universe is not infinite in the past, so there's no point in even imagining that. So what caused the Singularity?

...things just follow when you accept that the singularity existed. Whether it is caused or not is a subject of debate.

Sure it is. In fact, without answering that question, you're asking us to do nothing but take the whole Singularity thing on a kind of bad, blind faith. It's like you'd be saying, "Just believe whatever I say, and all your questions will disappear." In the first place, I see no reason to "just believe" somebody, and in the second, even if I did, there's a ton of follow-up questions as to how this "Singularity" can produce what you claim it produced.

And we have two, now: one is that all the order in the universe came by something prior to the Singularity...but you haven't exactly told me what that might be, nor can I guess what you have in mind...or that all the order in the universe has been generated by an intelligence.

So which is more plausible?

I already explained how you could have matter after the hot energy cools down enough.

That's implausible. Give me one example from our normal experience of a bunch of hot energy cooling down and producing highly complex systems of order.

You can't. Not even one. So if you've never ever seen anything like that happen, nor has anybody else, why would you imagine people should believe it happened that way at the Singularity?

[bahman]

Not even close. You said what you hoped had happened, but you said nothing at all about how it was possible to happen. How can you get order from sheer accident? Where have you ever seen that happen, in actual life?

You didn't read my whole explanation. Did you?

Of course. Hence my question.

You read? Yes or no?

Once you have the singularity the whole things follow. So the question is whether the singularity was caused or simply existed.

Yes, yes...you said that...but it makes no sense.

I already asked you whether physical things evolve naturally or whether God intervenes in all processes such as moving Earth around the Sun. Just pick the one you think is correct.

First of all, you don't already "have" the Singularity. We're talking about the First Cause, which you now say has to be prior to the Singularity, so as to be its cause, right? We know mathematically and certainly that the universe is not infinite in the past, so there's no point in even imagining that. So what caused the Singularity?

...things just follow when you accept that the singularity existed. Whether it is caused or not is a subject of debate.

Sure it is. In fact, without answering that question, you're asking us to do nothing but take the whole Singularity thing on a kind of bad, blind faith. It's like you'd be saying, "Just believe whatever I say, and all your questions will disappear." In the first place, I see no reason to "just believe" somebody, and in the second, even if I did, there's a ton of follow-up questions as to how this "Singularity" can produce what you claim it produced.

I didn't say to believe whatever I say. I said there are two scenarios here, the singularity was caused or it simply existed. As I said, you can have the physical universe with all things within, such as life once you accept that singularity existed. There are not tons of questions. Either, singularity naturally turns into the universe or God intervenes in each step. Take your pick.

And we have two, now: one is that all the order in the universe came by something prior to the Singularity...but you haven't exactly told me what that might be, nor can I guess what you have in mind...or that all the order in the universe has been generated by an intelligence.

So which is more plausible?

I already explained how you could have matter after the hot energy cools down enough.

That's implausible. Give me one example from our normal experience of a bunch of hot energy cooling down and producing highly complex systems of order.

You can't. Not even one. So if you've never ever seen anything like that happen, nor has anybody else, why would you imagine people should believe it happened that way at the Singularity?

Yes, if you cool down vapor it first turns into water. If you cool it down more it turns into ice. Molecules of water are not ordered in vapor and are ordered in ice.

Moreover, I already explained that energy can turn into matter and vice versa. Aren't you aware of this? So everything was a matter of time until the singularity cooled down enough that we could have matter from energy. Matter has properties and moves according to these properties. What we call the laws of nature is nothing but the regularity that we observe in the motion of matter which is due to the properties of matter.

[Immanuel Can]

You didn't read my whole explanation. Did you?

Of course. Hence my question.

You read? Yes or no?

Yes. And it made no sense.

I already asked you whether physical things evolve naturally or whether God intervenes in all processes such as moving Earth around the Sun.

False dichotomy.

What Christians think is that BOTH natural laws apply to physical things, AND that God can intervene whenever He chosoes. There's no inconsistency in that. So you left out the third alternative.

Either, singularity naturally turns into the universe or God intervenes in each step. Take your pick.

As I said, that's a false dichotomy, two alternatives presented while ignoring the third.

I already explained how you could have matter after the hot energy cools down enough.

That's implausible. Give me one example from our normal experience of a bunch of hot energy cooling down and producing highly complex systems of order.

You can't. Not even one. So if you've never ever seen anything like that happen, nor has anybody else, why would you imagine people should believe it happened that way at the Singularity?

Yes, if you cool down vapor it first turns into water. If you cool it down more it turns into ice. Molecules of water are not ordered in vapor and are ordered in ice.

There's a change of state, but no change of substance, in this example. Water remains water in all its forms. But you have to account for how the Singularity produced not mere energy, but a vast number of different substances, and then an incredibly complex set of "rules" or "laws," and also an intricately balance and complex universe.

[bahman]

Of course. Hence my question.

You read? Yes or no?

Yes. And it made no sense.

I already asked you whether physical things evolve naturally or whether God intervenes in all processes such as moving Earth around the Sun.

False dichotomy.

What Christians think is that BOTH natural laws apply to physical things, AND that God can intervene whenever He chosoes. There's no inconsistency in that. So you left out the third alternative.

Yes, I know that. I am asking whether the evolution of the universe from a hot dense energy occurred naturally or God intervened because the creation was not perfect in the first place.

That's implausible. Give me one example from our normal experience of a bunch of hot energy cooling down and producing highly complex systems of order.

You can't. Not even one. So if you've never ever seen anything like that happen, nor has anybody else, why would you imagine people should believe it happened that way at the Singularity?

Yes, if you cool down vapor it first turns into water. If you cool it down more it turns into ice. Molecules of water are not ordered in vapor and are ordered in ice.

There's a change of state, but no change of substance, in this example. Water remains water in all its forms. But you have to account for how the Singularity produced not mere energy, but a vast number of different substances, and then an incredibly complex set of "rules" or "laws," and also an intricately balance and complex universe.

I already mentioned that energy can turn into matter and vice versa. Aren't you aware of it?

[Immanuel Can]

I am asking whether the evolution of the universe from a hot dense energy occurred naturally or God intervened because the creation was not perfect in the first place.

Now your question imagines a universe in which this "Singularity" of yours takes place prior to God acting, and even the whole Creation already exists before your attempted explanation even begins.

But none of this has to do with the First Cause, because by your own admission, the Singularity itself was caused. And as for your comments about God intervening only after Creation, that gets the Biblical account totally wrong. Creation IS an action by God.

I already mentioned that energy can turn into matter and vice versa.

Show that. Show pure energy turning itself spontaneously into matter...and not just even ordinary matter, but highly-organized and complex systems.

Go.

[bahman]

I am asking whether the evolution of the universe from a hot dense energy occurred naturally or God intervened because the creation was not perfect in the first place.

Now your question imagines a universe in which this "Singularity" of yours takes place prior to God acting, and even the whole Creation already exists before your attempted explanation even begins.

But none of this has to do with the First Cause, because by your own admission, the Singularity itself was caused. And as for your comments about God intervening only after Creation, that gets the Biblical account totally wrong. Creation IS an action by God.

I am saying that let's assume the singularity was caused. Was the act of creation perfect and didn't need God's intervention afterward or it was not perfect so God has to intervene here and there, now and then... Take your pick.

I already mentioned that energy can turn into matter and vice versa.

Show that. Show pure energy turning itself spontaneously into matter...and not just even ordinary matter, but highly-organized and complex systems.

Go.

That is well known, E=MC^2.

[Immanuel Can]

I am saying that let's assume the singularity was caused.

Then it's not the First Cause. We can disregard the Singularity. It isn't relevant to the question. It tries to answer the question by assuming the question has already been bypassed.

I already mentioned that energy can turn into matter and vice versa.

Show that. Show pure energy turning itself spontaneously into matter...and not just even ordinary matter, but highly-organized and complex systems.

Go.

That is well known, E=MC^2.

No, that's not a showing of it happening. That's just Einstein's formula for the equivalency of energy and mass. It doesn't say anything at all about complexity or substantive transformation.

Show an example of pure energy spontaneously becoming a horse, or a rocking chair, or a fistful of beans, or a fish, or a complex ecosystem.

Go.

[bahman]

I am saying that let's assume the singularity was caused.

Then it's not the First Cause. We can disregard the Singularity. It isn't relevant to the question. It tries to answer the question by assuming the question has already been bypassed.

I don't understand you. To you what is the act of creation? God created Heaven and Earth...

Show that. Show pure energy turning itself spontaneously into matter...and not just even ordinary matter, but highly-organized and complex systems.

Go.

That is well known, E=MC^2.

No, that's not a showing of it happening. That's just Einstein's formula for the equivalency of energy and mass. It doesn't say anything at all about complexity or substantive transformation.

Show an example of pure energy spontaneously becoming a horse, or a rocking chair, or a fistful of beans, or a fish, or a complex ecosystem.

Go.

That formula tells you that energy can turn into matter and vice versa. You could have everything you can imagine, like a chair... once you have enough matter from energy.

[Immanuel Can]

I am saying that let's assume the singularity was caused.

Then it's not the First Cause. We can disregard the Singularity. It isn't relevant to the question. It tries to answer the question by assuming the question has already been bypassed.

I don't understand you.

It's very simple. We're asking, "What was the First Cause?" You say the Singularity WAS caused, so therefore, it wasn't the First Cause.

So what was the First Cause?

That is well known, E=MC^2.

No, that's not a showing of it happening. That's just Einstein's formula for the equivalency of energy and mass. It doesn't say anything at all about complexity or substantive transformation.

Show an example of pure energy spontaneously becoming a horse, or a rocking chair, or a fistful of beans, or a fish, or a complex ecosystem.

Go.

That formula tells you that energy can turn into matter and vice versa.

No, it tells you that energy and matter are equivalent...not that they can decide to turn into each other, or do so spontaneously and without any action being taken, or that they can generate immensely complex systems like the universe.

[Harbal]

You are the one who says he has an explanation for the first cause, but then goes on to make a claim that is no explanation at all. When you say God was the first cause, you are explaining absolutely nothing.

It actually explains the basic existence of everything...that's what we're working on.

It doesn't explain it. You might say that God brought the universe into existence, but what, exactly, is God, and how, exactly, did God bring it into existence? That explains no more than my saying something like the laws of physics brought in into existence, and I'm sure you wouldn't let that rest there.

But all I've said so far is that we can know for certain that there IS a First Cause.

You might have said it, but that doesn't mean it's true. Logic might dictate that there has to be a first cause, but logic also dictates that everything must have a cause, including your supposed first cause. It's a paradox that our current understanding of physics, mathematics, time, etc, simply does not enable us to solve. So, no, we cannot say for certain that there was a first cause.

I haven't yet tried to show what it is. Instead, I've pointed out only that we have two alternatives, if we want to figure it out: one is something unintelligent and impersonal, such as a 'force' of some kind, and the other is an Intelligence of some kind. And there, I've paused so far.

To say there are only two alternatives implies you know something that no one else alive knows. If there is such a thing as fundamental reality, we have no idea what it is, or what it is like and what possibilities it contains, and it may well be impossible for us to ever know, so you are making yet another unentitled assumption.

But Bahman is stuck on an unworkable theory, namely that the Big Bang is the First Cause and itself uncaused.

It seems to me that bahman could respond by saying that whatever makes his first cause theory unworkable also makes yours unworkable.

Scientists think there are things that come before and produced the Big Bang, but Bahman just says science is wrong about that.

You usually approve of science being wrong about things, so I'm surprised if you are raising an objection to that.

So Bahman has a belief in a universe that is arbitrarily started by an impersonal 'force.'

I don't really know what you mean by "impersonal", but has bahman specifically said that the force must have been impersonal, and have you somehow managed to demonstrate how only a personal force could start a universe?

But I suggest that Bahman's explanation is not only unscientific, but is, even by the lowest estimation, nowhere near plausible as an explanation for the level of complexity and sophistication that is evident in our universe,

When you speak of complexity and sophistication, you are speaking in terms of what appears to be complex and sophisticated to a human brain, and in some other context the universe may well be quite simple and crude.

And I think it was the right thing to do, but this is nothing to do with the matter in hand.

It's a very clear case of how people with an agenda often try to use the word "science" to make the opposition shut up, rather than actually being responsive to science themselves.

The agenda was to deal with a public health crisis, which seems quite proper to me. There were also others with an agenda to undermine public confidence and encourage some sort of rebellion on some sort of violation of freedom grounds, and although I don't know their reasons, it was all very sinister. Conspiracy theories abounded, and a lot of idiots were taken in by them.

It's a scientific hypothesis...

Sorry, it's not. Not by any normal definition of "science." It's a mere speculation. It won't be anything close to "science" until a test is invented to locate and take measurements from these "universes."

Of course it's science, because the hypothesis is based on existing knowledge of quantum physics and mathematics, and is considered scientifically plausible by enough qualified people to give it some degree of respectability. As you say, it is unprovable, and may ever remain so, but you are, nonetheless, presenting a deceitful misrepresentation.

Not thinking about God is nowhere near as difficult as you seem to think; it certainly requires no strategy.

And yet...here we are.

That's because you can't not think about God, not because I can't, and I will effortlessly stop thinking about him immediately after I've clicked on "Submit".